Sure the Confederates did not fight only for slavery, in their minds they could be fighting against Lincoln as the anti-christ. But it still would not matter, because slavery was the main means of production for the southern economies. So ideological motivations and economic/material interests are not equivocal.

I don't understand the key difference between wage labor and slave laborReally makes me think. The black people should have revolted and farmed for their own needs instead of being forced into wage labor.

The war wasn't reslly about the issue of slavery, many people in the union would have been perfectly content to keep it in place. It was about states' rights, and federalism vs anti-federalismI would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

Yeah fuck himI think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy.

I gjess that's one way to see it, and i find slavery absolutely abhorrent, but it's not a correct assumption to think the intention behind the Union engaging in war was solely driven by emancipating slavery. Perhaps you could say that was one of the most obvious motivators of the confederacy and i'd agree, but I think the civil war is misunderstood by a lot of people on the premise of it being a moral battle between the two sides

" A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."

this is the justification in the declaration of war

the fact that Robert Lee sided with them despite being anti-slavery markes him as the biggest cuck in history.

Not everyone has a contact with a resistance group. Most people, especially in those times, were disgusted by the idea of betraying their country and would ostracize or turn in anybody who didn't support the nation even when it did horrible things. And most Germans weren't really aware of everything the state was up to. If most soldiers in the modern day knew the kind of shit their countries did without telling them, they'd probably not be soldiers either.

This frames it better for me and agreed on all points, my original post kinda redundant now as I was referring to the moral sentiment behind when people refer to the war as being about slavery. It definitely was through an economic lens

Not defending CSA in the slightest, it was pretty much reactionary to a t. But you have to be pretty unread to not know about how the whole thing was more or less perpetuated by Northern industrialists in competition with Southern plantation owners and how even though the English route to abolishing slavery was open multiple times (as automation was picking up), it was in the industrialists favor to go to war. It was more of a conflict between southern plantation capitalists, who were beginning to feel the pressure from the emerging northern factory model and whos entire economy depended on slaves, and the nothern factory capitalists who needed both control of the cotton prices in the south as well as the removal of influential plantation owners with weapon and ship constructers also benefiting greatly. Slavery only really came to the limelight as both a way to cripple and agitate the south as their money was more or less in the slaves (pre-war) and as moral justification to rally support (during the war). Its a lot easier to say to abolishionists and non-slave state citizens "We are fighting to unite the union and liberate slaves" instead of "We are fighting for industrialists economic interests and to build factories during reconstruction". Again not defending the CSA, its good that they're gone and was vitally necessary to get where we are now, but I always feel the focus on slavery distracts from the actual economic reasons it was done.

While events like bleeding Kansas were definatly the powder keg that eventually caused the whole thing to go off and the attitudes of the pro-slavery groups were both reactionary and ideological, we have to look at the economic self-interests of the capitalists of the time and the strict material conditions of the states involved. There was a lot of economic meddling ocurring in a lot of states and nothern industrialist were securing monopolies across the US (monopolies which would carry far post war) with very wealthy southern landowners funding pro-slavery groups like the ones in Kansas as a way to expand market and to counter northern factory construction. I suppose though that my last statement was phrased poorly, I was mostly trying to say the war wasn't really fought for moral reasons or to free slaves but that slaves just happend to be part of the economic framwork caught in the middle and was never really the true motivation of what was a capitalist war between old industry and new industry.

Don't forget the north was also really racist. "Send them back to Africa" was a popular opinion at the time. A lot of northerners had an opinion similar to "the south is too tolerant" for wanting blacks at all. There is no good side of the war.

Yeah, its also important to note that at the time that northern industrialists were also buying up a lot of businesses down south and driving out the local competitors to secure monopolies. To quote Georgia's declaration (warning, its pretty predictably reactionary): While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade.

Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.

Confirm your age

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.